Wakilii

Seremba & Others v Bujagali Energy Limited & Others (Civil Suit 74 of 2018)

High Court · [2022] UGHC 141 · 2022 Suit Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
First instance civil suit for damages arising from alleged trespass and destruction of property during dam construction
Decision
Suit dismissed in its entirety — no compensation awarded to plaintiffs

Observed later treatment

No later-treatment classification is recorded for this judgment.

Citator coverage is limited to judgments in the Wakilii corpus and source-matched treatment records. Absence of a signal is not an assertion that the case remains good law.

AI-generated summary. This summary was generated by AI from the full text of the judgment. It may contain errors or omissions—always read the source judgment before relying on it.

Holding

Held that the suit against the Attorney General was time barred under s.3 of the Civil Procedure and Limitation (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, as the tort-based claim was filed more than two years after the cause of action arose. Against the first defendant, the court held that the plaintiffs failed to prove that controlled rock blasting during dam construction caused damage to their properties, as the expert evidence relied upon was unreliable and failed to establish a scientific nexus between blasting and the alleged damage. Natural factors and poor construction standards were found to be probable causes.

Outcome

Suit dismissed in its entirety — no compensation awarded to plaintiffs

Facts

Eight plaintiffs from Buloba, Kikubamutwe and Malindi villages claimed that construction of the Bujagali Hydroelectric Power project by the defendants involved rock blasting in 2008–2009 that damaged their homes and property. The first defendant (Bujagali Energy Limited) owned the project but the actual construction and blasting was performed by an independent contractor, Salini Costruttori (third defendant). The plaintiffs alleged they made claims for compensation but no adequate response was provided. In October–November 2012, the first defendant compiled a list of affected persons but made no compensation. The plaintiffs filed suit in November 2014 seeking damages for trespass and destruction of property. The third defendant was never served and was struck out. The second defendant (Attorney General) did not appear at trial despite filing a defence.

Issues

  1. Whether the suit is time barred?
  2. Whether the defendants are liable to compensate the plaintiffs?
  3. What are the remedies available to the parties?

Orders

  • The suit against the 1st defendant is dismissed with no order as to costs.
  • The suit against the 2nd defendant is time barred and is dismissed with no orders as to costs.
  • The suit against the 3rd defendant stands withdrawn by the plaintiffs.
  • The 3rd defendant Salini Costruttori struck out from the suit with no order as to costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Limitation — Tort Actions Against Government — Two-Year Limitation Period
An action founded in tort against the Government must be brought within two years from the date on which the cause of action arose, pursuant to s.3 of the Civil Procedure and Limitation (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act Cap 72, failing which the action is time barred.
Civil Procedure — Witness Statements — Requirement for Witnesses to Appear and Take Oath
Under Order 18 Rule 5A of the Civil Procedure Rules, witness statements of witnesses who do not appear in court to take oath and tender their statements may not be admitted into evidence except with the express consent of the parties.
Evidence — Expert Evidence — Standard of Reliability and Scientific Proof Required
Expert evidence in civil proceedings must be reliable, based on scientific data, and establish a convincing nexus between the alleged cause and the damage. An expert who approaches assessment with a preconceived conclusion without sourcing actual data or applying scientific principles produces unreliable evidence upon which the court will not rely.
Evidence — Expert Evidence — Courts Must Independently Scrutinise Expert Opinions
Expert evidence is advisory and persuasive in nature, not conclusive. Courts must independently assess the weight of expert evidence and guard against unconsciously according it superior quality, as experts may be biased, partisan, or reluctant to speak the whole truth if it tells against the party who paid them.
Tort Law — Trespass and Negligence — Burden of Proof in Claims for Property Damage
Where a plaintiff claims property damage from lawful activities such as controlled rock blasting, the burden is on the plaintiff to prove by scientific findings or concrete evidence that the alleged activity, rather than natural factors or poor construction, caused the damage.

Legislation cited (5)

Cases cited (6)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.

Seremba & Others v Bujagali Energy Limited & Others (Civil Suit 74 of 2018) [2022] UGHC 141 (2 December 2022)
Source: this page presents Wakilii’s issue analysis and metadata for a publicly reported Ugandan judgment. Any AI-generated summary is marked as such. Judgment text is sourced from the Uganda Legal Information Institute (ulii.org). Wakilii is not affiliated with ULII.